Nulling the Movement Aftereffect: Evidence for Pattern Specificity

Abstract

A microtextured surface such as a homogeneously illuminated tracing-paper screen provides an excellent test surface for the movement aftereffect. When it is moved against the aftereffect at the appropriate velocity, a null occurs and the screen appears stationary. However, if patterned illumination is superimposed on the homogeneous field, the nulling breaks down. The pattern appears to move in one direction, driven by the aftereffect, and the screen can be clearly seen moving in the opposite direction. This breakdown begins to occur at luminances just above threshold for the detection of the pattern. The implication is that two populations of motion detectors are involved. Evidence in support of this postulate is presented.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barlow

H. B.

Hill

R. M.

, 1963, “Evidence for a physiological explanation of the waterfall phenomenon and figural after-effects”, Nature, 200, 1345–1347.

Honig

W. K.

, 1967, “Studies of the ‘storage’ of the after-effect of seen movement”, paper read at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society.

Julesz

, 1971, Foundations of Cyclopean Perception (University of Chicago Press, Chicago), p. 101, figure 4–51.

Kalfin

Locke

, 1972, “Evaluation of long term visual motion afterimage following monocular stimulation”, Vision Research, 12, 359–361.

Masland

R. H.

, 1969, “Visual motion perception: Experimental modification”, Science, 165, 819–821.

Mayhew

J. E. W.

, 1972, “Motion aftereffects contingent on size: Evidence for movement detectors sensitive to direction of contrast”, Vision Research, 13, 1789–1705.

Mayhew

J. E. W.

Anstis

S. M.

, 1972, “Movement after-effects contingent on colour, intensity and pattern”, Perception and Psycho physics, 12, 77–85.

Mayhew

J.E. W.

, 1973, “Luminance thresholds for motion contingent on colour”, Perception, 2, 41–51.

Mayhew

J. E. W.

, (forthcoming), “The effect of stationary patterns on adaptation for movement: Evidence for inhibitory interaction”, Perception.

10.

Movshon

J. A.

Chambers

B. E. I.

Blakernore

, 1972, “Interocular transfer in normal humans, and those who lack stereopsis”, Perception, 1, 483–490.

11.

Sekuler

Pantle

, 1967, “A model for after-effects of seen movement”, Vision Research, 7, 427–439.

12.

Spigel

I. M.

, 1962, “Contour absence and critical factor in the inhibition of decay of a movement after-effect”, Journal of Psychology, 54, 221–228.

13.

Tolhurst

D. J.

, 1973, “Separate channels for the analysis of the shape and the movement of a moving visual stimulus”, Journal of Physiology, 231, 385–402.

14.

Turvey

M. J.

, 1973, “On peripheral and central processes in vision: Inferences from an information processing analysis of masking with patterned stimuli”, Psychological Review, 80, 1–52.

15.

Walker

J.T.

, 1972, “A texture contingent motion after-effect”, Psychonomic Science, 28, 333–335.

16.

Ware

Mitchell

D. E.

, 1974, “An interocular transfer of various visual after-effects in normal and stereoblind observers”, Vision Research, 14, 731–734.